Exposing Child UN-Protective Services and the Deceitful Practices They Use to Rip Families Apart/Where Relative Placement is NOT an Option, as Stated by a DCYF Supervisor
Unbiased Reporting
What I post on this Blog does not mean I agree with the articles or disagree. I call it Unbiased Reporting!
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Delaware's Family Court has long been criticized for its lack of openness and transparency, but documents obtained by WDEL show there's been past efforts to erase the cloud of secrecy that's been overshadowing justice.
Craitor’s private members bill gets second reading
Niagara Falls MPP Kim Craitor has worked on many pieces of legislation over his nine years in office. The Liberal representative has championed causes such as the right to transparent government, and the right to public access of Great Lakes shorelines. His most recent cause is a personal one, a cause that transcends politics and party lines. For the fourth time in his career, he has submitted the same private member’s bill to Queen’s Park. This time, it looks like his bill may become the law of the land. Bill 67, known as the “Grandparents Rights” bill, passed a second reading on May 31 with the unanimous approval of MPPs.
If passed, the bill will become an amendment to the Children’s Law Reform Act. It will make it easier for judges to give custody of children to their grandparents, and help guarantee the right of access to grandchildren. Craitor penned the bill after hearing the concerns of several constituents, who were either unable to see their grandchildren, or facing challenges in trying to adopt them after the death of one or both parents.
An extremely sick toddler died in Renaix, Belgium last week after receiving his MMR vaccination from the ‘Kind en Gezin’ Child and Family Health Centre. The toddler, the second to die in Belgium in less than six months, suffered a cardiac arrest after receiving the MMR vaccination given to him by a G.P. despite warnings from his father that he was still unwell.
Thank's to a fellow fighter for Family Rights, I was just made aware that hair follicle and saliva drug testing in child custody cases and visitation is ILLEGAL.
Again, NH DHHS/DCYF fails to follow Federal Guidelines in the child custody case of my granddaughter, stolen by NH DCYF on 10/03/2005.
My daughter was called in to the Nashua, NH DCYF office between Oct. 2005 and the end of Dec. 2005, to visit with her newborn daughter.Upon arrival, she was met by the DCYF Assessment worker Melissa Deane, DCYF Supervisor Tracey Gubbins, DCYF Lawyer Kate McClure, the Foster strangers with my granddaughter and a worker from Quest Diagnostics.
My daughter was informed by Melissa Deane that she would be cutting off strands from my daughter's long blonde hair in order to perform hair follicle drug testing. My daughter wasn't happy about them cutting her hair, but was forced into the procedure, not knowing it was illegal and unconstitutional and told if she refused the test would be considered positive. When the (EDIT) Quest Diagnostics worker Assessment worker was done cutting her hair, she was taken into the restroom and forced to provide a urine specimen and was then allowed a short visit with her daughter, while all eyes were focused on her and her daughter.
About a week later, the result's came back. The hair follicle drug test showed nothing, but for some strange reason the urine specimen came back positive for every illegal drug known to man. Odd, but the specimen showed no methadone, even though my daughter was enrolled in a Methadone Program, given doses every morning.
From research I've done in the past, hair follicle drug testing is SUPPOSED to be the most accurate drug test performed. That drugs used from years passed come up positive in the hair and hair follicle drug testing is extremely expensive.
Shortly after the hair follicle test was performed, my daughter was again called in to the Nashua DCYF office, met by all the same people and I use that term loosely.
She was again faced with another ILLEGAL drug test. The Saliva test. She was forced to stick a swab in her mouth. The same swab which fell on the dirty DCYF floor after being told a clean one would not be provided. If she refused, the test would be considered positive and of course, it DID come back positive.
My question's:
Why did my daughter's Court-appointed Lawyer Brian Major allow DCYF to break Federal Law?
Why did Judge Bamberger, Judge Leary, Judge Tenney and Judge Raymond Cloutier allow my daughter's Constitutional Rights to be violated?
Why weren't the illegal drug test's thrown out and the charges dropped against my daughter?
Why hasn't DCYF and their cohort's been prosecuted for ILLEGAL drug testing?
Why hasn't the Quest Diagnostics worker been prosecuted? She should have know what test's were allowed and what test's weren't.
Please read below. Seeing as I just found this information, the Statute of Limitations will now begin. Any taker's? We sure could use a Pro-Bono Lawyer, seeing as Nashua DCYF has taken away our livliehood, which is all their good for. Ruining peoples lives! Is there A Lawyer out there who want's to make a name for himself. A Lawyer who isn't afraid of NH DCYF!
HAIR FOLLICLE DRUG TESTING RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL D045854 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE 128 Cal. App. 4th 1181;27 Cal. Rptr. 3d 757;2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 681;2005 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3617;2005 Daily Journal DAR 4927 April 29, 2005, Filed
"The Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Mandatory Guidelines) establish the scientific and technical guidelines for Federal workplace drug testing programs and standards for certification of laboratories engaged in urine drug testing for Federal agencies, under authority of section 503 of ]Public Law] 100-71, 5 [United States Code] 7301 note, and [Executive Order] No. 12564. The Mandatory Guidelines were first published in the Federal Register on April 11, 1988 (53 Fed.Reg. 11979), and revised on June 9, 1994 (59 Fed.Reg. 29908), and on November 13, 1998 (63 Fed.Reg. 63483)." (69 Fed.Reg. 19644 (Apr. 13, 2003).)
As of this date, the federal government only allows urine tests under the Mandatory Guidelines, and, indeed, the Mandatory Guidelines were recently amended to place stricter controls on laboratories conducting urine tests. (66 Fed.Reg. 43876-43882 (Aug. 21, 2001); 69 Fed.Reg. 19644-19645 (Apr.13 2004).) The Mandatory Guidelines provide strict and comprehensive standards for urine testing. (Ibid.)
PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] Proceedings in prohibition after superior court order compelling hair follicle drug test. Superior Court of San Diego County, No.ED24070, Alan Clements, Judge.
OVERVIEW: At issue was whether Cal. Fam. Code § 3041.5(a) permitted courts in custody and visitation proceedings to order drug testing by means of a hair follicle test of a parent whom the trial court had determined engaged in habitual, frequent, or continual illegal use of controlled substances. In granting a writ of prohibition, the court held that § 3041.5(a) required any court-ordered drug testing to conform to federal drug testing procedures and standards, and at present those federal standards only allowed for urine tests. The language of § 3041.5(a) and its statutory history demonstrated that only urine tests were allowed because the language "least intrusive method of testing" in § 3041.5(a) did not show an intent by the legislature to allow any type of available testing. To pass constitutional muster, the intrusiveness of the testing had to be weighed, along with an individual's legitimate expectation of privacy, the nature and immediacy of the government concern at issue, and the efficacy of drug testing in meeting that concern. Thus, the only reasonable interpretation of the clause was that if and when additional tests were permitted, the least intrusive method had to be used.
OUTCOME: The court issued a writ of prohibition, directing the trial court to vacate its order compelling a hair follicle drug test.
According to:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs See:http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-11-25/pdf/E8-26726.pdf
Subpart B-Specimens
Section 2.1 states that urine is the only specimen that can be collected by a Federal agency under the Guidelines for its workplace drug testing program to clarify that Federal agencies are prohibited from collecting any other type of specimen.
Don't worry DCYF, you WILL be held accountable! For ALL your deceitful and illegal practices!
The Vaccines for Children program has been providing free vaccines to children in need for nearly two decades. Unfortunately, a new report from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has found that a significant fraction of providers around the country have been irresponsible when it comes to storing these vaccines. The oversight matters, since, while such improperly stored vaccines are still safe, they may not be as effective.
